This case involves the appeal of a kidnapping conviction of the accused Isla. The main issue is whether Isla's extrajudicial confession was admissible as evidence, given without the assistance of counsel during custodial investigation. The Supreme Court finds that the confession was obtained in violation of Isla's constitutional rights, as she was questioned without counsel while in detention. As such, the extrajudicial confession relied upon by the trial court for conviction was inadmissible. The ruling of the trial court was set aside.
This case involves the appeal of a kidnapping conviction of the accused Isla. The main issue is whether Isla's extrajudicial confession was admissible as evidence, given without the assistance of counsel during custodial investigation. The Supreme Court finds that the confession was obtained in violation of Isla's constitutional rights, as she was questioned without counsel while in detention. As such, the extrajudicial confession relied upon by the trial court for conviction was inadmissible. The ruling of the trial court was set aside.
This case involves the appeal of a kidnapping conviction of the accused Isla. The main issue is whether Isla's extrajudicial confession was admissible as evidence, given without the assistance of counsel during custodial investigation. The Supreme Court finds that the confession was obtained in violation of Isla's constitutional rights, as she was questioned without counsel while in detention. As such, the extrajudicial confession relied upon by the trial court for conviction was inadmissible. The ruling of the trial court was set aside.
CA Caloocan to continue his search there he met Lola Danding
who also said the same thing as Martinet. On June 18, 1987 the G.R. No. 115407 August 28, 1995 Malabon police informed Amador that Isla had been arrested. TOPIC: Aspects of the Right to Bail He then went to the Malabon Police Headquarters to talk with Isla who told them that they will find the child in Pampanga. Summary: When, upon searching, they failed to find the child in This case is an instant appeal of the decision of the Pampanga Isla was returned to the Malabon Police and was Regional Trial Court (RTC) in finding the accused Isla guilty eventually transferred to the Western Police District of Manila. of kidnapping. She alleges that the alleged extra-judicial On June 21, 1987, Isla was investigated by P/Cpl. Pablito confession is inadmissible in evidence, being extracted in Marasigan and during the investigation she executed an violation of her constitutional rights. The SC finds merit in this extrajudicial statement which states that she did kidnapped the allegation saying that extra-judicial confession relied upon by child and that the child was brought to Teofilo Ablaza for the trial court in her conviction is inadmissible as evidence adoption. She signed the same with Atty. Joaquin of the CLAO since it was extracted in violation of her rights. Thus the ruling beside her. However during the investigation Atty Joaquin was of the RTC was set aside. not present with Isla and that the statement was already prepared when he arrived thus he was not able to counsel Isla. Doctrine: Marasigan also failed to inform Isla of her rights and he induced her to sign the document with a promise to set her free. An extra-judicial statement executed by the accused during the custodial investigation without the assistance of Relevant Issue: counsel is inadmissible in evidence for it violates the right of the accused. Was the alleged extra-judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence, being extracted in violation of her Facts: constitutional rights? This case is an instant appeal of the decision of the Ruling: YES Regional Trial Court (RTC) in finding the accused Isla guilty of kidnapping. It was alleged that Isla kidnapped the child Ratio: Maritess Organez. Amador Organez, the child’s father, tried to Appellant correctly assails the trial court for depending look for his child when their neighbors told him that a pregnant upon her sworn statement dated August 1, 1987 as the basis for woman was last seen around their house before the child was her conviction. The said document was procured in violation of lost. He then went to search for a pregnant woman around their her Constitutional rights. area and it was during that time that he met Shirley Martinet who told him about her child who was also lost and that it As can be gleaned from the records, Isla was already in happened when Isla visited her before. He then went to the custody of the police authorities as early as July 18, 1987. She was turned over to the elements the Western Police District station. Also Isla was given a false promise that she will have only on July 11, 1987. The Malabon police detained her, who her liberty after affixing her signature in the document was then pregnant, for three days, without filing any formal prepared by P/Cpl. Marasigan. It is clear then, that policeman charge, before she was turned over to the Western Police Marasigan resorted to unlawful means to extract a confession District. upon appellant, which effectively vitiated her consent. Consequently, the sworn statement is inadmissible in evidence. A perusal of the records shows that, while Isla was at the Western Police District, Police Corporal Pablito Marasigan immediately conducted an investigation, without providing her with counsel of her choice, or advising her of her constitutional rights. It is clear that the law does not distinguish between preliminary questions and questions during custodial investigation, as any question asked of a person while under detention, is considered as a question asked while under custodial investigation. As ruled by the SC in the case Gamboa v. Cruz the moment there is a move of the investigator to elicit admissions or even plain information from the suspect which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, the suspect should be assisted by counsel, unless he waives his right, but the waiver should be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. In the case at bar, when P/Cpl. Marasigan started his investigation without providing Isla with counsel of her choice, the former violated her rights as enshrined in the Constitution and it was only after he conducted an investigation on appellant that P/Cpl. Marasigan summoned Atty. Domingo Joaquin of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office and detailed at the Western Police District as inquest lawyer, to assist the appellant in giving a confession. On this basis, there is reason to believe appellant's assertion that Atty. Joaquin did not assist her during the investigation, inasmuch as the statement was already finished and prepared before he arrived at the police